A lot of the initial hype was based on the signal levels the links were reporting from the CPE. What people didn’t realize was that the signal being reported was for the pilot carrier and not the full bandwidth signal. The difference is about 30 dB. So when a CPE was connecting at say -70 the reporting device was saying about -100. A lot of operators got excited thinking they could install customers down to -100 rather than -70 because they were getting great speed tests at the reported signal level. That is where everyone thought the NLOS for LTE was going to be better than what they have been using. Then reality set in about that 30 dB difference and as such the NLOS improvement hoped for was not as significant as first thought. As I recall the Baicells devices had that difference, not sure if all LTE CPE had the same issue.
Thank you, Brian Webster www.wirelessmapping.com From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mark Radabaugh Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 12:29 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE Lots of wishful thinking combined with a little bit of LTE magic. 5 on your list would be my vote - receiver sensitivity and lack of interference. You left out the other adder - running at illegal power output levels at the base station for the NN licenses. LTE certainly has significantly better receiver sensitivity than our normal solutions - but it comes at a pretty high cost in throughput. So yeah, you can run NLOS in 3.65 and it works as long as the noise floor stays low and you don’t care much about the overall capacity of the base station. Under CBRS running at even higher power levels makes it push through into NLOS a bit more, but the noise floor overall is also going to come up so it may be something of a wash in the end. Mark On Feb 27, 2020, at 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: For years there has been enthusiasm for the idea that 3.5 GHz is suitable for NLOS propagation in a way that doesn’t apply to other mid band spectrum like 2.4, 2.5 or 5 GHz. Initially is wasn’t clear what type of NLOS people meant – urban clutter or foliage – but I think it’s pretty clear people are talking about foliage. Why do people expect this? Is it the frequency, or the protocol like WiMAX and now LTE? Or no theoretical basis, just it works don’t ask why? I can think of several possible explanations, not sure if any of these are why people associate 3.65 GHz LTE with NLOS. - 3.65 GHz somehow is absorbed less by foliage than other mid band frequencies - some feature of the LTE protocol that overcomes NLOS - LTE equipment has more sensitive receivers - 3.65 GHz has less interference due to being semi licensed - some combination of receiver sensitivity and lack of interference - none of the above but LTE equipment is just made better Maybe it’s real world experience with no theoretical basis. But I always like to know why something works, or doesn’t. You’d prefer that the reason it works isn’t some temporary anomaly. Like service is really good at this new restaurant, because nobody knows about it yet. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Eric Muehleisen Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2020 10:29 AM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] [ External ] Re: Cambium LTE Still in winter. I'd like to see how it performs when the leaves are full in May. On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 9:26 AM dave <dmilho...@wletc.com> wrote: We R starting to see some real world impressive results with just the pmp450i CBRS radios on a 20Mhz channels This guy is nearLOS about 2.5 miles of some tree and pointing into edge of panel Current Results Status <http://10.10.36.1:1080/_min.gif?mac_esn=0a003e40c710> Stats for LUID: 65 Test Duration: 10 Pkt Length: 1714 Test Direction Bi-Directional Link Test without Bridging Data Channel Priority Downlink Uplink Aggregate Packet Transmit Packet Receive Actual Actual Low 50.01 Mbps 32.97 Mbps 82.98 Mbps, 6008 pps 23887 (2388 pps) 36207 (3620 pps) Efficiency Downlink Uplink Efficiency Fragments count Efficiency Fragments count Actual Missed Actual Missed 99% 984301 7409 99% 647582 3593 Link Test ran on 15:20:50 02/27/2020 UTC Currently transmitting at: 8X/6X MIMO-B Current Contention Mode Status: No Piggyback of data in contention <image001.jpg> On 2/25/20 3:59 PM, Matt Mangriotis via AF wrote: I completely understand your skepticism Ken. However, Cambium did design the 3 GHz 450m with every intention of being able to support a transition to LTE (specifically, as a RRH with cnRanger). The intent is for this device to be a fully capable 8x8 MU-MIMO. Yes, you’ve got that right though, you’ll need new CPE devices and a BBU for each sector. We don’t have a target date when this will be developed yet… right now, we’re focused on getting the cnRanger CBRS 2x2 RRH and High Gain Cat 6 CPE devices out in August! With respect to NLOS coverage, I will agree that 450 is not quite on par with some of the things that LTE brings to the table (regarding range and the ability to maintain the downlink). However, with the increased power limits of CBRS, the 450m does an admirable job. In fact, in comparing equipment cost and performance, I would suggest that the 450 platform outperforms anything out there. That is, it’s less expensive to get bandwidth where it needs to be (at a higher rate, and to more customers). If the customer density can support the cost of cnMedusa, you’re going to be better off from total cost of ownership (both CapEx and OpEx) perspective. The new 3GHz 450b High Gain has 29 dBm Tx Pwr, and a 20 dBi dish integrated antenna… this is pretty impressive for CBRS CPE equipment (most of the high gain/high power LTE stuff I see is only going to be 23 dBm Tx, plus 15 dBi antenna). There are several customers out there that have done these comparisons… hopefully, they can chime in. Matt From: AF <mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Ken Hohhof Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 7:06 PM To: 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <mailto:af@af.afmug.com> <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: [ External ] Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE You should probably talk to someone at Cambium, unless someone here has already done that. There was talk 1-2 years ago about 450m is software defined so maybe they could use it as a remote radio head with their cnRanger LTE BaseBand Unit (BBU). It has been pretty quiet since then, but I haven’t been able to make it to the shows. Without an update directly from the horse’s mouth like Matt at Cambium, or some kind of announcement, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Back in 2018 it was in the realm of “it would be nice”. That’s pretty tentative. Plus you’d still have to buy the BBU and new CPE, so it doesn’t sound like a huge savings anyway, still 2/3 of a forklift upgrade. I mean, if it turned out that the 3 GHz cnRanger RRH was literally a 450m, that would probably be the best case, but how likely do you think that is? This is just my personal speculation, if it’s an important part of a decision you’re making now, you probably need to get hold of your Cambium regional sales manager, or the 450 or cnRanger product manager. If you’re going to WISPAmerica, you can probably do it there. From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Jason McKemie Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 6:03 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <af@af.afmug.com> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE So the 450M is supposed to be LTE upgradable? On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 3:45 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: Something aboit the medusa top can be used with cnranger potentially with a fiber run and a software update On Mon, Feb 24, 2020, 3:38 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote: In my opinion, 450 is better than Baicells or Telrad LTE at everything except NLOS performance. ....Except that NLOS performance is so useful that one can be tempted to ignore all of the other features of the 450. I do understand that tradeoff because I've had to make it myself. On 2/24/2020 4:30 PM, David Williamson wrote: 450 3.65Ghz vs. Baicells 3.65Ghz LTE = no comparison. All but one of the 450 APs are already removed from our network. I am just trying to determine if the SMs will be usable on Cambium LTE once they roll it out, or if it will require a completely different SM. David From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Jason McKemie Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 4:28 PM To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE Why are you getting rid of 3.65 Cambium in favor of LTE? On Monday, February 24, 2020, David Williamson <dwilliam...@customcomputersva.com> wrote: Will the Cambium 3.65 LTE have a completely new SM or will it use the existing 450SM's? Trying to determine if I should keep our 450SM's or just go ahead and sell them to one of our secondary market distributors along with our 450 AP's. Thanks! David Williamson -----Original Message----- From: AF [mailto:af-boun...@af.afmug.com] On Behalf Of Adam Moffett Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 1:57 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Cambium LTE I think I heard next quarter for the 3.5. On 2/24/2020 1:48 PM, Jeff Broadwick - Lists wrote: > 3.5 isn’t available yet. > > I believe that 2.5 can be purchased. > > Jeff Broadwick > CTIconnect > 312-205-2519 Office > 574-220-7826 Cell > jbroadw...@cticonnect.com > >> On Feb 24, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Avatar Davis <acd...@mail.harvard.edu> wrote: >> >> Does anyone have experience with Cambium LTE? I am highly dissatisfied with >> my current manufacturer and was wondering if anyone had experience >> using/demoing their product line. Cambium products seem consistently good in >> my experience. >> >> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280372524&sdata=sDEJMwg%2FrUeE9YW6GqIDR1XzERRWkE%2F6XePPnWoPmRg%3D&reserved=0> >> > -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280382518&sdata=pP5xMGSatWmczFjAPjC1wEXnNEcBOceklsDEIeHxs6c%3D&reserved=0> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faf.afmug.com%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Faf_af.afmug.com&data=02%7C01%7Cmatt.mangriotis%40cambiumnetworks.com%7Cb86add20912747adc42b08d7b98f079e%7C0e263e36340946228ac818d993e76eb6%7C0%7C0%7C637181896280392515&sdata=%2BbZTwYPdzPsYWDRGoWDCC16Kx5oRKh7VKuFLS8xZ%2Bek%3D&reserved=0> -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list <mailto:AF@af.afmug.com> AF@af.afmug.com <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
